WordscopeLooking for the accurate translation of a word in context?Wordscope has indexed thousands of quality sites to help you!

Opinions from our customers and partners«Many members of the translation services of the House of Representatives use Wordscope on a daily basis. This tool is a great help to us in searching for terminology in context. Wordscope contains a wide range of excellent translation suggestion. »

Jean-François BauduinCounseller Translator Reviewer

The House of Representatives

Founder/administrator of the "Belgian Translators" site and forum (www.beltrans.org)

The reason why EU law covers such returning migrants is that preventing them from relying on EU law against their Member State of origin could discourage nationals of a Member State from exercising their right to free movement in the same way as migrant workers from other Member States.

6. Where the applicant for or proprietor of an EU trade mark has his rights re-established, he may not invoke his rights vis-à-vis a third party who, in good faith, has put goods on the market or supplied services under a sign which is identical with, or similar to, the EU trade mark in the course of the period between the loss of rights in the application or in the EU trade mark and publication of the mention of re-establishment of those rights.

(5) Union procedures to ensure the effective exercise of the rights of the Union under international trade rules should be based on a legal mechanism under Union law which is fully transparent, and ensures that the decision to invoke the Union’s rights under international trade rules is taken on the basis of accurate factual information and legal analysis.

All of us tell the story of international law in Canada: refugee claimants, anyone who invokes an internationally recognized right, every lawyer who argues about international sources of law, and every environmentalist who speaks about sustainable development or precaution.

Witnesses and experts may claim the right not to testify which would accrue to them under the law of either the executing or the issuing State and shall be informed about this right in advance of the hearing.

The Commission's consultation 'Your rights, your future' also asks the public about the very practical obstacles citizens face in their daily life, when exercising their rights as EU citizens or when wanting to rely on fundamental rights enshrined in EU law.

The Commission's consultation 'Your rights, your future' also asks the public about the very practical obstacles citizens face in daily life, when exercising their rights as EU citizens or when wanting to rely on fundamental rights enshrined in EU law.

9. Points out that the Lisbon Treaty, which came into force on 1 December 2009, incorporates an acknowledgement of the right to regional and local self-government into European Union primary law for the first time (Article 4(2) of the Treaty on European Union); emphasises that in several judgments the CJEU has invoked the right to local self-government and made it clear that the ‘possibility for public authorities to use their own resources to perform the public-interest tasks conferred on them may be exercised in cooperation with other public authorities ...[+++]’ (judgment in Case C-324/07); draws attention, further, to the CJEU Grand Chamber judgment of 9 June 2009 in Case C-480/06, which found, further, that Community law does not require public authorities to use any particular legal form in order to carry out their public service tasks on a joint basis; accordingly, regards public-public partnerships, such as cooperation agreements between local authorities and forms of national cooperation, as falling outside the scope of the public procurement directives, provided that the following criteria are all met:

9. Points out that the Lisbon Treaty, which came into force on 1 December 2009, incorporates an acknowledgement of the right to regional and local self-government into European Union primary law for the first time (Article 4(2) of the Treaty on European Union); emphasises that in several judgments the CJEU has invoked the right to local self-government and made it clear that the ‘possibility for public authorities to use their own resources to perform the public-interest tasks conferred on them may be exercised in cooperation with other public authorities ...[+++]’ (judgment in Case C-324/07); draws attention, further, to the CJEU Grand Chamber judgment of 9 June 2009 in Case C-480/06, which found, further, that Community law does not require public authorities to use any particular legal form in order to carry out their public service tasks on a joint basis; accordingly, regards public-public partnerships, such as cooperation agreements between local authorities and forms of national cooperation, as falling outside the scope of the public procurement directives, provided that the following criteria are all met:

9. Points out that the Lisbon Treaty, which came into force on 1 December 2009, incorporates an acknowledgement of the right to regional and local self-government into European Union primary law for the first time (Article 4(2) of the Treaty on European Union); emphasises that in several judgments the CJEU has invoked the right to local self-government and made it clear that the ‘possibility for public authorities to use their own resources to perform the public-interest tasks conferred on them may be exercised in cooperation with other public authorities ...[+++]’ (judgment in Case C-324/07); draws attention, further, to the CJEU Grand Chamber judgment of 9 June 2009 in Case C-480/06, which found, further, that Community law does not require public authorities to use any particular legal form in order to carry out their public service tasks on a joint basis; accordingly, regards public-public partnerships, such as cooperation agreements between local authorities and forms of national cooperation, as falling outside the scope of the public procurement directives, provided that the following criteria are all met:

6. Where the applicant for or proprietor of an►M1 EU trade mark ◄ has his rights re-established, he may not invoke his rights vis-à-vis a third party who, in good faith, has put goods on the market or supplied services under a sign which is identical with, or similar to, the ►M1 EU trade mark ◄ in the course of the period between the loss of rights in the application or in the ►M1 EU trade mark ◄ and publication of the mention of re-establishment of those rights.

6. Where the applicant for or proprietor of a Community trade mark has his rights re-established, he may not invoke his rights vis-à-vis a third party who, in good faith, has put goods on the market or supplied services under a sign which is identical with, or similar to, the Community trade mark in the course of the period between the loss of rights in the application or in the Community trade mark and publication of the mention of re-establishment of those rights.

6. Where the applicant for or proprietor of a Community trade mark has his rights re-established, he may not invoke his rights vis-à-vis a third party who, in good faith, has put goods on the market or supplied services under a sign which is identical with, or similar to, the Community trade mark in the course of the period between the loss of rights in the application or in the Community trade mark and publication of the mention of re-establishment of those rights.

Consequently, a limited liability company may enforce the rights of holders who are members of other organisations of holders, where those organisations are shareholders in the company enforcing the rights concerned

6. Where the applicant for or holder of a registered Community design has his rights re-established, he may not invoke his rights vis-à-vis a third party who, in good faith, in the course of the period between the loss of rights in the application for or registration of the registered Community design and publication of the mention of re-establishment of those rights, has put on the market products in which a design included within the scope of protection of the registered Community design is incorporated or to which it is applied.

6. Where the applicant for or holder of a registered Community design has his rights re-established, he may not invoke his rights vis-à-vis a third party who, in good faith, in the course of the period between the loss of rights in the application for or registration of the registered Community design and publication of the mention of re-establishment of those rights, has put on the market products in which a design included within the scope of protection of the registered Community design is incorporated or to which it is applied.

[31] "With regard to the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia, the holder, or his beneficiary, of a patent or supplementary protection certificate for a pharmaceutical product filed in a Member State at a time when such protection could not be obtained in one of the abovementioned new Member States for that product, may rely on the rights granted by that patent or supplementary protection certificate in order to prevent the import and marketing of that product in the Member State or States where the product in question enjoys patent protection or supplementary protection, even if the product ...[+++]was put on the market in that new Member State for the first time by him or with his consent", Accession Treaty, Part three, Title II, Annex IV, Section 2 "Company Law", AA2003/ACT/Annex IV/en p.2499, signed in Athens on 16 April, 2003.

6. Where the applicant for or proprietor of a Community trade mark has his rights re-established, he may not invoke his rights vis-à-vis a third party who, in good faith, has put goods on the market or supplied services under a sign which is identical with or similar to the Community trade mark in the course of the period between the loss of rights in the application or in the Community trade mark and publication of the mention of re-establishment of those rights.

All information and content displayed on this site (“Content”) is the property of their respective owners. This “Content” is provided to you “as is” and you agree to use it at your own risk. We assume no liability for the accuracy, completeness or timeliness of this information. For any matter concerning the site or its use, including any dispute, only Belgian law will apply, and only the courts of Brussels will have jurisdiction. By using the site, you thereby accept all the conditions of use.